Utopia Talk / Politics / Vaccine effectiveness

Seb Member	Tue Oct 05 06:22:30 So the data on decline in protection is interesting. Study in the lancet has efficacy v infection dropping from 88% to 47% after six months. Boosters needed. Will be interesting to see if all vaccines show similar declines.
jergul large member	Tue Oct 05 06:26:15 Which vaccine is that and what protection falls?
jergul large member	Tue Oct 05 06:26:57 Not surprising however, we have all assumed booster shots forever for this endemic disease.
Seb Member	Tue Oct 05 06:53:29 Sorry, Pfizer. Efficacy is (I did say) vs infection. Protection against hospitalisation remains high. There was some hope that protection would last for maybe as high as 3 years a while back. I suppose the question now is whether to pursue boosters at 6 months generally (not use at risk groups) to reduce infection rates, or accept infection rates will remain high but hospitalisation low and prioritise global coverage. Failure to do 6 month boosters exposes refuseniks to more risk. the Trump Republicans might eventually go extinct!
nhill Member	Tue Oct 05 07:04:23 Any idea how natural immunity plays into this effectiveness. Can I just get COVID once a year and say fuck a booster?
murder Member	Tue Oct 05 07:08:28 They're going to put us on subscription for these boosters. :o)
nhill Member	Tue Oct 05 07:13:28 Fuck that.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Oct 05 07:34:37 "Protection against hospitalisation remains high." This is good news though. Don't know if anyone read it, but in my "first shot of moderna thread I mentioned, the boy got sick (cough and 38C fever*). I do not have any medical data or test to back this up, but I felt like I caught it, something was in my throat and the lymphatic system in my neck started tingling. I went into the sauna and now I just have a barely runny nose. This is the second time I feel like I am getting sick, go into the sauna and bam, I am good :) there are some facts about virus and immune system (no data I could find) that implies it might be effective to some degree. You raise your body temp, mimicing a fever and the temps in a sauna can kill virus, even covid, because they are so sensitive to heat. No data on this actually happening in-vitro though, just lab stuff. But hey, doesn't hurt :) and it either way it feels good to get into a sauna if you are sick. *Besides walking around in his under wear (he was hot) he didn't skip a beat.
Seb Member	Tue Oct 05 07:51:58 Murder: "They're going to put us on subscription for these boosters. :o)" I do wonder how this is going to pan out - it's sufficiently lethal as to have a big impact on life expectancy, widespread and persistent that I can see IP being a problem here. If manufacturers are savvy, they will get ahead of the curve and work out a way to license production at v. low margin. Otherwise I can see breakdown of IP both on the vaccine and on production methods and techniques.
Cherub Cow Member	Tue Oct 05 09:07:12 This news got to UP way late. Anyways.. .. "They're going to put us on subscription for these boosters. :o)" That's the idea. It's almost like entire government policies were written around getting more people vaccinated not because these iterations were as effective as previous vaccines and that this effectiveness would mean restarting the economy but because Pharma is making money by the ton every time a government puts a vaccine mandate in place. Those "free" vaccines we get mean a direct revenue stream for Pharma. The U.S. government is already obligated to do something with the 200 million Pfizer vaccine doses and 200 million Moderna vaccines that were ordered for a delivery start in our current Q4 2021 (see [1] and [2]), and coupled with the inevitable mandates for boosters increasing the market size, that's a whole lot of shareholder value for Pharma heading beyond Q1 and Q2 of 2022. All those people need to get vaccinated and boostered regularly for Pfizer and Moderna's stock value.. I mean.. for public health. Notice also that Pfizer and Moderna have been in a slump since mid to late August: http://money.cnn.com/quote/chart/chart.html?symb=PFE http://money.cnn.com/quote/chart/chart.html?symb=MRNA ..and despite poor vaccine performance (which was reported months ago and buried by MSM, by the way), Biden ran out of "patience" with the unvaccinated in early September. I wonder if the stock dip and Biden's patience are related. It's almost like Biden is trying to ensure good Q4 performance for Pharma companies because he is contractually obligated to be a salesman for Pharma's production schedule. Perhaps this is less about public health than it is about government being the sales division for corporate interests. Every percent increase in that overall vaccination percentage in the U.S. is worth about $40 million, and keep adding for boosters. Also consider the money being made due to governments giving "free" vaccines to third world countries — 500 million doses heading out from the U.S. in Q4 2021 to Q2 2022 at the cost of about $12 billion. Oh, but it's the unvaccinated holding countries hostage, not politicians trying to pump and dump Pharma stocks via their subsidiaries. .. "You raise your body temp, mimicing a fever and the temps in a sauna can kill virus, even covid, because they are so sensitive to heat." Don't say that in a science-denying echo chamber, but yes, that is an effective strategy in many cases. As a generic disclaimer, it's not a one-size-fits-all solution or sole strategy, of course, but it can dampen the viral impact if managed well. .. [1] http://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer-and-biontech-provide-us-government-additional-200 [2] http://investors.modernatx.com/news-releases/news-release-details/us-government-purchases-additional-200-million-doses-modernas )
Daemon Member	Tue Oct 05 09:30:48 "Can I just get COVID once a year and say fuck a booster?" Automatic translation of what Drosten, the most influential virologist in Germany, says about that: get vaccinated and after that get infected http://www...fen,podcastcoronavirus334.html (...) But the vaccination protection will also deteriorate a bit after a while. And of course you can say: Well, you have to vaccinate again. But actually, the goal is not to always have to vaccinate. I believe that the majority of infection biologists and physicians are currently saying: We actually have to regard the endemic situation as a cold situation. That means, however, that we are then also in the situation that our immune update, i.e. the booster immunization, actually does not happen here, but through recurring contacts with the virus and that the population immunity is also becoming more and more resilient, because then it really is infections here. And then I get mucosal immunity, which is local. There are then own T-cells that sit there, local B-cells that make antibodies there locally. So this infection immunity, it's more robust in the long run. My goal as a virologist Drosten, how I would like to become immune now is: I want to have a vaccination immunity and then saddling on top of that I definitely want to have my first general infection and the second and the third at some point. I have long since come to terms with that. And then I know, I'm immune for a really long time and I'll only see this virus every few years, just like I see the other coronaviruses every now and then. I can justify that for myself as a relatively healthy adult. There are other populations that can't, of course. But I can only take responsibility for myself, for my own health, because I have now been vaccinated twice. And I have to admit, I would also like to be vaccinated a third time. But here, as a citizen, I would also say: My third vaccination dose will first go to Africa. Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
Seb Member	Tue Oct 05 10:57:34 Cc: Lancet study was posted only in last day or so. I know there are other studies, but not so many that really narrow down the uncertainty. "It's almost like entire government policies were written around getting more people vaccinated ..." Conspiratorial twaddle. Nim: Sauna can mimic fever with some of the benefits, but fevers don't necessarily cure you of COVID. If you feel better after a sauna, could just be you have a cold and it alleviated symptoms.
Sam Adams Member	Tue Oct 05 11:31:52 Antibodies fade but memory cells last. Seems consistent with allowing minor infections. Especially against the mega spreading indian version.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Oct 05 11:52:04 Seb I put so many if and buts in there, I sincerely hope no one thinks I said something foolish. I want to be 100% clear, I have no idea if it was covid, I have no idea if I even had caught something. I should, I take care of all the hygien stuff with him. Notwithstanding actual data on the efficacy of Saunas for any viral infection or covid, it makes sense, but also it doesn't hurt and makes you feel better. It was more a sales pitch for saunas. But if it works I speculate that it may also be the actual hot and humid air circulating in and out of your respiratory system. Of course it would depends on how far into the infection you are, I would guess saunas would be most effective very early in the infection. Take into account then that most people don't have saunas and that public saunas as a prophylaxis against covid is most likely a terrible idea.
Seb Member	Tue Oct 05 14:41:16 Nim: Yeah, I know you weren't saying you were cured of COVID or anything else - just from what I've read, fever helps in a number of ways: 1. it makes the body less hospitable to viruses and bacteria, but marginally. 2. it generally marks a boost in the immune system (e.g. improved blood flow etc. that helps ensure antibodies etc. gets to places they might otherwise be at lower concentrations). Saunas help mimic it a bit, but I suspect it is often as much a case of alleviating symptoms and making you feel better generally. Which is still a good thing to do. Yeah, "everyone get into a hot cramped room for half an hour with a bunch of strangers" is probably a terrible idea from a disease control point of view!
Cherub Cow Member	Tue Oct 05 16:26:47 "I know there are other studies" Correct. This thread was late to the party. .. "Conspiratorial twaddle." That's about the zero imagination response I'd expect from a halfwit washout such as yourself. Seb couldn't possibly imagine that a corporate interest would be incentivized in such a way, even when the numbers and the articles showing the exact exchange of value directly from those involved (Pfizer and Moderna) are posted in plain sight. He's one of these retards who thinks that politicians are the guardians of science, which, incidentally, is why he was so late to the actual science with this thread — he had to wait until the propaganda wings reluctantly reported on the recent Lancet study and spoon-fed him the results.
nhill Member	Tue Oct 05 16:45:11 CC right now: http://i.imgur.com/v2ol8V9.gif
Seb Member	Tue Oct 05 16:46:28 Cherub: "Correct. This thread was late to the party." Not really. Prior published studies were less definitive (e.g. looked at proxies, like antibody levels, or did not have decent controls). This is on the same methodology as efficacy, so you have a like for like quantitative comparison that you can put into epidemiological models in a consistent fashion. I am hardly going to publish embargoed PHE figues. Everything is possible, it is not about imagination of what could be, free from constraint. I'm not going to go into the obvious fallacies and internal inconsistencies with such a flight of fantasy. "politicians are the guardians of science" LOL. God knows where you pulled that from. I think you can look simply at naked self interest. Firstly, the consistent pattern across the developed world makes applying Kremlinology to Biden's Whitehouse a deeply parochial and small minded. The world is bigger and wider than your little corner of it. The simple explanation is that in most of the world - even in America now you have gotten rid of the lunatic - governments know they are going to be held to account on how well they handle the pandemic. High vaccination numbers are the best way to get the numbers moving in the right way, and avoid overloaded health care systems. Campaign donations are lovely; but any positive approval ratings that can be achieved by spending such donations from Pfizer or Moderna pales into comparison with the positive approval rating (or avoided negative ones) that are achieved via vaccination. Sometimes, the incentives are aligned. You don't need to invent mad new ones like the politico-pharmaceutical complex.
Seb Member	Tue Oct 05 16:51:39 The Lancet study is about the earliest you can get peer reviewed publication of actual real world efficacy reduction after 6 months on large diverse population samples. Anything else is tracking proxies and inferring impact on efficacy which is not definitive (e.g. "well, maybe memory cells..." etc.)
Cherub Cow Member	Wed Oct 06 07:21:11 [CC]: "Correct. This thread was late to the party." [Seb]: "Not really." Yes, actually. For clarity, let me ask these rhetorical questions: • Are you aware that all of the information published in the latest Lancet paper (October 4th) was publicly available before the publication date? • Are you aware that the Lancet study pulled from publicly available health data, such as hospital admissions, vaccine status, and positive/negative test status? • Are you aware that the paper's authors have released their findings in advance of the paper's publication as part of their update process and peer review strategy? • Are you aware that scientific papers often are released months after the studies and the conclusions are completed simply because it takes about that long to format and edit scientific papers for publication? • Are you aware that the study concluded two months ago? • Are you aware that the paper is in part a review of dozens of papers which all had the same findings? • Are you aware that the paper heavily cites Israel as a model population for vaccine efficacy? • Are you aware that Israel is a "canary in the coal mine" in terms of being an early mass-adopter of vaccines, and thus Israel's efficacy numbers and the relevance of those numbers to the global population were known months before the October publication date? .. [CC]: "[Seb is] one of these retards who thinks that politicians are the guardians of science, which, incidentally, is why he was so late to the actual science with this thread" [Seb]: "LOL. God knows where you pulled that from." Yes, "God knows" why. .. [Seb]: "You don't need to invent mad new ones like the politico-pharmaceutical complex." "Invent"? Really? By that same line of disbelief, do you think that the military–industrial complex is a "flight of fantasy"? Do you think that governments with expensive militaries have no incentive to wage war? Do you really not see how a government entangled with drug companies would have financial incentives to make policies which get more drugs into more people — whatever the cost? Or do drug dealers often convince people to stay clean? .. [Seb]: "The simple explanation is that ... they are going to be held to account on how well they handle the pandemic." That arrives from an authoritarian perspective. Authoritarian citizens typically blame leaders for not taking more action, whereas libertarian citizens typically blame leaders for taking too *much* action. So that authoritarian citizen's value-judgment amplifies within their own echo chamber (i.e., authoritarian leaders acting like dictators pleases mainly those who love the feel of a boot stamping on their face). .. [Seb]: "High vaccination numbers are the best way to get the numbers moving in the right way, and avoid overloaded health care systems." More rhetorical questions: • Are you aware that the supposed "overloading" of hospitals is often self-incurred by governments? I.e., are you aware that bed "shortages" often result because a hospital is forced by government policy (e.g., lockdowns, mandates, and the restrictions of allowed hospital services) to mass-fire its employees, thus causing hospitals to decrease the amount of beds available, thus causing the appearance of a bed shortage? • Are you aware that hospitals — by simple economic design — always operate at near capacity? For example, If they expect 200 patients, they will have staff on duty to cover a little more than 200 patients; they will be nearly at capacity. But, if they expect 100 patients, they will have staff on duty to cover a little more than 100 patients; they will still be nearly at capacity. When an article says that hospitals are "full", the article has typically ignored this simple operational standard. .. [Seb]: "Firstly, the consistent pattern across the developed world makes applying Kremlinology to Biden's Whitehouse a deeply parochial and small minded. The world is bigger and wider than your little corner of it." I'm glad you mentioned the wider world, as indeed this same strategy applies to many world leaders, and that informed my analysis. Consider which countries are wealthy enough to pay for vaccines, which countries offer them for "free", which countries have a small versus a large "menu" of vaccines, which countries entangled themselves with strong corporate interests, and which countries have applied the most stringent mandates. Four examples: • In the U.S., only two options currently exist (With J&J all but gone, it's Pfizer and Moderna; i.e., small menu), and the FDA was swamped trying to dedicate all resources to fast-track vaccine contenders. No other vaccines are currently allowed, and the FDA's process means that those two vaccines got all the initial focus (a huge resource cost in terms of ignoring tracks for other drugs and projects). Because they are "free" (paid for by government), and the government itself has invested resources into these vaccines, the government wants a dollar return on its investment and is simultaneously financially bound to the success of Pfizer and Moderna. This means that they are most concerned not with COVID data and hospitalizations but with getting vaccines into arms — regardless of public health outcomes or the current state of COVID hospitalizations. Federal vaccine mandates thus have a major financial incentive attached to them. • In Australia, the details repeat. Only three options are available (Pfizer, Moderna, and AstraZeneca), Australia's FDA-equivalent (TGA) was financially driven to focus solely on approving these vaccines. Vaccines are "free", and Australia is on the line for upwards of $8 billion for its initial manufacturing purchases — that figure has increased dramatically as Australia has been on the line for debt- and supply- swapping programs with other countries (e.g., UK, Singapore). Despite having incredibly low COVID mortality and despite having a manageable population density and many geographical benefits in a pandemic scenario, Australia has been a model for authoritarian overreach. They do not care about health outcomes; they need shots in arms. • In Russia, only one option is available: Sputnik V ("Victory"). But, a big twist: they spent very little on R&D time-wise and financially, developed it with their own in-house government laboratories, fudged their trial numbers, and are making money off of it mainly as an export to other countries. They are not financially liable to a third party pharmaceutical company, and there is no incentive for them to sell it to themselves. Citizens receive doses for free, and non-citizens must pay $20. Putin has spoken out against vaccine mandates, and no major federal lockdowns have been ordered since the initial fears of early 2020. • In Mexico, 9 vaccines are officially approved and more vaccines and treatments are being administered without approval — on-demand and without oversight. Mexico resisted making vaccines "free", deployed them for "free" only in limited capacities, and have ordered mainly from the cheapest (least validated) suppliers rather than getting financially entangled with the most robust ($$$most validated$$$) suppliers (e.g., they ordered only 80 million AstraZeneca doses and spread out their other orders across a multitude of options). In small capacities, some localities have asked employees of crowded businesses to get vaccinated *or* get tested for the presence of antibodies (compare to politicians who are all-too-insistent on the vaccine and who dismiss antibodies). The Mexican president is against mandates, saying that deciding on vaccination is a matter of liberty. TLDR: I know this has exceeded a reasonable reading limit, so I'll just re-iterate shortly: the more financially entangled a federal government has become with pharmaceutical companies, the more likely the government is to ignore the real impact of policy on public health in order to cultivate a mass adoption of vaccination above all other options. If they insist on specific vaccinations as the primary strategy while actively attacking other options, vaccination is likely the funnel leading into their own bank accounts. And if you follow the logic, it makes the plays more obvious. For example, proof of vaccination often will not be valid if the vaccine is not on a particular country's approved vaccine list (that's a loss of income for the home country). For vaccination status to be "valid" in the Netherlands ("valid" was an appropriate "Gattaca" word they happened to use), they will only accept Pfizer, Moderna, and AstraZeneca. Also, in late September, the U.S. decided that it will not consider those vaccinated with Sputnik V to be vaccinated — Russia called out the U.S. on the transparent strategy to funnel more vaccines into Pfizer and Moderna: "We stand against attempts to politicize the global fight against COVID-19 and discriminate against effective vaccines for short-term political or economic gains," — The Russian Direct Investment Fund "Mutual recognition of vaccines is the issue of this year' and claimed that a 'number of ‘Big Pharma’ companies intentionally, as a matter of competitive rivalry, are attempting to restrict Sputnik and absorb markets," — RDIF head Kirill Dmitriev Saying that Sputnik V is not "valid" would mean another 800 million traveler re-doses back on the table for competitors. We better just get every vaccine — for, umm.. public health reasons. Yeah, that's the true incentive, sure.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Oct 06 12:49:49 I can sense a wall of text being prepared somewhere to the south west of my location. You have been warned.
Seb Member	Wed Oct 06 13:16:25 Cherub: "Are you aware..." Yes. Data and pre-prints are less definitive - data because what matters is analysis; and pre-prints haven't been subjected to review. "Yes, "God knows" why." *Where*. "Invent"? Really" Yes. Invent. Or as you described it yourself, an act of imagination. "That arrives from an authoritarian perspective" No it doesn't. The fact you think this follows arrives from a paranoic perspective. "More rhetorical questions:" I think you mean wild assertions and baseless speculations implied as objective facts by presenting them as questions. The premise of these false binaries are easily rejected. Present evidence for them, do not ask me whether I am "aware" of them. It is like asking you if you are "aware" of the invisible pink unicorn stalking you. "by simple economic design — always operate at near capacity?" This is why most countries do not rely on market forces as the primary means of commissioning health care. Many include surge capacity for resilience. But that point aside, this simply underlines the importance of reducing hospitalisation to avoid much higher mortality rates. "the more financially entangled a federal government has become with pharmaceutical companies, the more likely the government is to ignore the real impact of policy on public health in order to cultivate a mass adoption of vaccination above all other options" Thats a lovely narrative to provide an entirely unnecessary explanation for mass vaccination: the government knows lots of infections, deaths, and collapsing secondary care is bad for its re-election prospects. If you want to assert it the better explanation, you would do well to provide convincing arguments as to why other explanations are better and that "the real impact of policy on public health" is actually being ignored. "For example, proof of vaccination often will not be valid if the vaccine is not on a particular country's approved vaccine list" You are right, public health authorities not accepting proof of vaccination with a vaccine they do not regards effective as proof of immunity is utterly inexplicable, except by the burning desire to boost sales of international drug companies that (for the most part) are not headquartered in those countries and would not contribute to any local demand. "would mean another 800 million traveler re-doses back on the table for competitors" You can travel to the EU and most countries with a negative PCR test if unvaccinated. In some cases that may also require quarantine, but most countries (including Netherlands) do not. And the idea that counties want to restrict tourism in order to boost international drug companies margins is fanciful at best. The simpler explanation for not recognising vaccinations of drugs that either have not been submitted or rejected by regulators as insufficiently effective is so obvious here I don't think it needs stating.
Seb Member	Wed Oct 06 13:22:10 Countries are engaging in a vast act of economic and medical self harm to benefit foreign owned drug companies is not quite as adventurous a proposition as a government being concerned that being held to account at the ballot box for public health, a duty they are specifically charged with in law by the legislature, is actually authoritarian. But it's close. But both are well passed the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" threshold. Articulating whatever not terribly plausible top down narratives you can imagine doesn't constitute evidence.
Seb Member	Wed Oct 06 13:23:55 "as to why other explanations are better" *Worse.
Habebe Member	Wed Oct 06 14:48:16 So what's the deal with natural immunity now? Is it just as good as the vaccinne? Better? Does it lead to less efficacy of certain vaccinnes?
jergul large member	Wed Oct 06 20:26:59 habebe No good data on your middle question. Very unlikely previous infection decreases protection from a vaccine.
Habebe Member	Wed Oct 06 20:32:30 Jergul, Poor wording on my part. I meant lets say a regular person who gets the vaccine is 80% safe. A person with natural immunity is at 50%, does the vaccine only bump them up to 80%? So really giving them that 30% boost or would it be higher?
Habebe Member	Wed Oct 06 20:33:54 I ask because Ive heard people argue that NI is generally more.l effective. Buy people say all sorts of shit.
jergul large member	Wed Oct 06 20:56:28 Nobody knows.
jergul large member	Wed Oct 06 20:58:41 http://www...-variant-than-vaccination.aspx
Habebe Member	Wed Oct 06 21:02:42 Natural immunity was estimated to be about 13 times stronger than having two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. That's a big fucking difference! I guess we just wait for more studies to confirm.
Seb Member	Thu Oct 07 01:38:40 Habebe: It varies. From what I understand, the way natural Immunity works, the body spams lots of antibodies that attack various proteins on the virus jackets and amplifies the ones that work. The mRNA vaccines only provide the body with one target, the spike protein, so variants of the virus that deviate their spike protein from that may not be recognised. This means that vaccine based immunity may be more effective against some variants as the antibody the vaccine produces targets a really important bit of the virus, whereas your body might have found something less effective to target. On the other hand because you body is targeting a range of proteins, not just one specific version of the spike protein, it's much harder for a variant to emerge that is not well recognised but the immune system.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Oct 07 04:07:27 http://www...al-immunity-versus-vaccination This site cites several papers that all seem to indicate natural immunity is not better. 36% of people have ZERO antibodies after an infection. I have to say I am a bit surprised about this. Additionally the immunity seems to fade quicker than with a vaccine.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Oct 07 04:09:42 The sample size of the first study is N=144, not huge, but it probably doesn't need to be and all the other studies they cite point to the same direction, that natural immunity is weaker. So taken together I think we can with some confidence say, probably not. You are likely better with a vaccine.
Seb Member	Thu Oct 07 04:55:55 Nim: That could figure too though - if you have lots of competing memory antibodies that could be produced the protection is weaker against the strains most conformant with the vaccine, but broader to variants. I'm pretty sure though that this description I've had is a more simplified explanation than the reality. I would guess vaccine is better than natural immunity, and if you have natural immunity, a vaccine will boost that anyway.
Seb Member	Thu Oct 07 04:56:24 *memory cells
jergul large member	Thu Oct 07 05:12:29 Yah, we just dont know. Natural immunity is not a standarized product either, so huge variations can be expected...particularly against the backdrop of a virus that mutates a lot.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: